arXiv:math/9801019v1 [math.GT] 6 Jan 1998
DEFORMATION OF ACYLINDRICAL MANIFOLDS WILLIAM P. THURSTON
Abstract. This is an eprint approximation to [Thu86], which is the definitive form of this paper. This eprint is provided for convenience only; the theorem numbering of this version is different, and not all corrections are present, so any reference or quotation should refer to the published form. Parts II and III ( [Thua] and [Thub]) of this series, although accepted for publication, for many years have only existed in preprint form; they will also be made available as eprints.
0. Introduction
This is the first in a series of papers dealing with the conjecture that all compact 3-manifolds admit canonical decompositions into geometric pieces. This conjecture will be discussed in detail in part IV. Here is an easily stated special case, in which no decomposition is necessary:
Conjecture 0.1 (Indecomposable Implies Geometric). Let M3 be a closed, prime, atoroidal 3-manifold.
Then M3 admits a locally homogeneous Riemannian metric, i.e., a Riemannian metric such that for any
two points p and q there is an isometry from a neighborhood of p to a neighborhood of q carrying p to q. The main result of this series of papers will be to prove conjecture 0.1 and generalizations for a large class of manifolds.
Theorem 0.2 (Atoroidal Haken Is Hyperbolic). Let M3 be a closed, atoroidal Haken manifold. Then M3
admits a hyperbolic structure, i.e., a Riemannian metric with all sectional curvatures equal to -1.
A hyperbolic structure is, of course, locally homogeneous: it is locally isometric to hyperbolic 3-space H3.
Conjecture 0.1 is far from being proven in general, but it seems well-supported by a great many examples. A special case is
Conjecture 0.3 (Poincare). Every simply-connected closed three manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. This would easily follow from 0.1 because it is easily seen that the only 3-dimensional simply-connected locally homogeneous space is the three sphere (up to diffeomorphism). The Poincar´e conjecture has been the goal of many efforts by good mathematicians, which on the whole have not been very fruitful in shedding light on 3-manifolds. It has probably been too narrow a goal; I hope that the geometrization conjecture, which applies to all 3-manifolds and hence has an abundance of examples to be tested against, will prove more productive in the long run toward understanding 3-manifolds.
We will also prove generalizations of 0.2 to manifolds which are not closed, as well as to orbifolds or V-manifolds (which are related to discrete groups of isometries which do not act freely).
There has been a rather long gap in time since the time I first formulated the geometrization conjecture and announced and discussed its proof for Haken manifolds in various forums and the present. In the meantime, the theorem has become widely known and accepted, although relatively few people have learned the proof. Part of the difficulty with writing about it has been that there is a lot of background material which feeds into the proof at least in the informal sense, if not in the logical sense. This background material is nice in itself — it seems to be an intrinsic part of the geometric theory of three-manifolds — but it is daunting because of its quantity. Much but not all of this background material is informally published in Ref. Thu86, particularly chapters 8 and 9, but little of it has been formally published. This series of papers is organized so that the most important and least published ideas come first. Later parts will present material tending more to overlap with Ref. Thu86, but the presentation will be more careful.
Date: February 1, 2008 reconstruction of 1986 Annals paper.
Almost all proofs having to do with Haken manifolds take place by induction — by cutting the manifold along incompressible surfaces into simpler manifolds (with boundary), analyzing the resulting pieces, and reassembling. The present proof is no exception. The hard part of the proof is the geometric analysis of all possible hyperbolic structures on a manifold with boundary in order to find limits to the way the geometry is distorted as the hyperbolic structure is varied.
The necessary information will be obtained in parts I, II and III. Part II will also construct hyperbolic structures on atoroidal 3-manifolds which fiber over a circle. This material has been exposed in Ref. Sul80; Sullivan introduced several important simplifications to my original unpublished approach, and in part II Sullivan’s exposition will be further simplified and generalized. Hyperbolic structures on atoroidal Haken manifolds will be assembled in part IV. The other seven kinds of 3-dimensional geometric structures will also be explained here, to give a conjectural overall picture of 3-manifolds.
Part V will develop some results on geodesic laminations on surfaces and in 3-manifolds, and some material on homeomorphisms of surfaces. Some of this material is closely related to my preprint Ref. Thud which was expanded and exposed in Ref. Fet al.79. Other parts of the material are developed in Ref. Thu86
Part VI will develop some necessary theory of geometrically tame hyperbolic manifolds. The needed theory was first developed in Ref. Thu86; about a year ago, Francis Bonahon [Bon86] has proven a very nice stronger result.
Part VII will deal with orbifolds. It will give a proof of the existence of a certain “reflection groups” crucially needed in a kind of doubling trick in part IV. It will also a stronger result, that the geometrization conjecture holds for orbifolds with nonempty singular locus. The stronger result for orbifolds logically depends on the general result for Haken 3-manifolds, so the weaker form must be proven first.
During the long delay in publication of this material, several worthwhile references have appeared. Peter Scott has written an excellent expository article concerning 3-dimensional geometric structures [Sco83], and John Morgan [Mor84] has written a detailed outine of the proof of the geometrization theorem for hyperbolic 3-manifolds. I also wrote an expository article concerning the geometrization conjecture [Thu82]. John Morgan and Peter Shalen [MS84], [MS88a], [MS88b], [MS85] have found an interesting algebraic proof of the main result of the current paper, and the generalization in part III.
Of somewhat indirect relevance is also Ref. Thuc in which I prove a result concerning conformal dynamical systems which closely parallels many of the methods used in the current series of papers, although in a much simpler form. A proof of this theorem has also been presented by Douady and Hubbard, [DH93].
I would like to thank George Francis for drawing most of the illustrations.
For purposes of reference, figure 1 describes the logical flow of ideas and results which enter into the proof of the main theorem. The boxes do not represent ideas of equal importance or difficulty, and they could easily be regrouped or subdivided — but as the reader becomes familiar with the ideas of the proof, the chart might help her or him to keep in mind the overall logical structure.
1. Topologies
For any n-manifold M , let H(M ) denote the set of complete hyperbolic n-manifolds N equipped with a homotopy equivalence f : M → N . Two elements N and N′ are equivalent if there is an isometry between
them in the correct homotopy class, that is, in the class that makes a homotopy commutative diagram. H(M ) is the same as the set of conjugacy classes of discrete faithful representations of π1(M ) in the group
of isometries of hyperbolic n-space Hn.
There are at least three distinct useful topologies for H(M ); glossing over the distinctions is a common source of error in arguments involving varying hyperbolic structures. We will define and briefly discuss in turn the algebraic topology, the geometric topology, and the quasi-isometric topology.
When H(M ) is thought of in terms of representations of the fundamental group of M , an obvious topology comes to mind, namely the topology of convergence of representations on finite generating sets. This can be alternately phrased as the compact-open topology on homomorphisms between the two groups. The set H(M ) inherits a topology as a quotient space under the action of Isom(Hn) by conjugacy on the space of
representations. This topology is the algebraic topology. H(M ) with this topology will be denoted AH(M ). In the case M is a closed 2-manifold, AH(M ) is commonly called the Teichm¨uller space of M .
Proposition 1.1 (AH(Non-Elementary) Is Hausdorff). If π1(M ) does not contain an abelian subgroup with
Figure 1. This is a flowchart of some of the ideas which enter in the proof of theorem 0.2.
A discrete group of isometries of hyperbolic space which admits an abelian subgroup with finite index is called an elementary group.
Proof. Suppose that π1(M ) does not have an abelian subgroup of finite index and that N1 and N2 are
elements of AH(M ) such that every neighborhood of N1intersects every neighborhood of N2. We will show
that N1= N2.
We translate to the context of representations of groups. Suppose that M does not contain an abelian subgroup of finite index. Represent Nias Hn/ρi(πM). Let g1. . . gk be generators for the fundamental group
of M . For any representation τ , the translation distance for the ith generator is a function Tτ(gi)(x) =
d(x, τ (gi)(x)) on hyperbolic space. The translation distance of gigoes to infinity with distance from the axis
of τ (gi) if τgi is hyperbolic. Otherwise, τgi has a unique fixed pointed at infinity, and Tτ(gi) tends to infinity
away from this fixed point.
It cannot happen that all generators for a discrete faithful representation τ have a common fixed point at infinity, for otherwise the entire group would be a discrete subgroup of the group of similarities of Euclidean space, which automatically has an abelian subgroup of finite index. (This is a standard part of the theory of the thick-thin decomposition, or Margulis decomposition, of a hyperbolic manifold). Therefore, the total translation distance
dτ =
X
i
Tτ(gi)
is a proper function, that is, it goes to infinity near the sphere at infinity. Also, dτ is strictly convex, so that
d−1
τ ((0, K]) is a convex ball in Hn for any sufficiently large K.
Suppose that a sequence of representations φi converges to ρ1, while a conjugate sequence ψi converges
to ρ2. Then the sets d−1φi((0, K]) must converge to d
−1
ψi. The conjugating isometries must carry these sets for the φi to the corresponding sets for the ψi. This
implies that the conjugating isometries remain in a compact subset of the group of isometries of hyperbolic space, so they have a convergent subsequence, whose limit conjugates ρ1 to ρ2.
The case that M is a closed surface has been analyzed classically. Fricke proved that for a closed surface of negative Euler characteristic, AH(M ), which may be identified with the Teichm¨uller space T (M ) for M , is homeomorphic to Euclidean space of dimension 3|χ(M )|. When M is a surface with non-empty boundary, AH(M ) is not connected. The explanation is that a homotopy equivalence between two surfaces with boundary is not generally homotopic to a homeomorphism. The components of AH(M ) are in one-to-one correspondence with homotopy equivalences of M to surfaces, up to homeomorphisms. Each component of AH(M ) is diffeomorphic to the product of Euclidean space with a number of half-lines.
A three-manifold (M, ∂M ) is acylindrical if ∂M is incompressible and if every map of the 2-dimensional cylinder C = S1× I,
f : (C, ∂C) → (M, ∂M )
which takes the components of ∂C to non-trivial homotopy classes in ∂M is homotopic into ∂M . The main result of this paper is
Theorem 1.2 (AH(Acylindrical) Is Compact). If M is any compact acylindrical 3-manifold with boundary, then AH(M ) is compact.
The case when ∂M is empty follows from Mostow’s theorem [Mos73], which asserts that AH(M ) consists of at most one point. The theorem is false without the hypothesis that M is acylindrical; a simple example is (surf ace × I).
Another appealing and often useful topology for H(M ) is the geometric topology, denoted GH(M ). To define a neighborhood basis for GH(M ), consider (N, f ) be any element of H(M ), where f is a homotopy equivalence from M to the hyperbolic manifold N . A (small) neighborhood of (N, f ) in the geometric topology is defined by the choice of a (large) compact set K ⊂ N and a (small) positive real number ǫ. The neighborhood NbhdK,ǫ(N ) consists of those elements (N′, f′) of H(M ) such that there exists a
diffeomorphism φ of K to a subset K′⊂ N′whose derivative is within ǫ of being an isometry at every point
of K and where φ has the correct homotopy class. Explicitly, (f′)−1◦ i′◦ φ must be homotopic to f−1◦ i,
where i : K ⊂ N and i′: K′ ⊂ N′ are the inclusions and f−1and (f′)−1 are homotopy inverses of f and f′.
To measure the deviation of a linear map L from being an isometry, one can use the quantity sup V 6=0 log kL(V )k kV k
This geometric topology is not to be confused with the geometric topology which can be defined on other sets. The most useful example is the set of based hyperbolic manifolds, with no specification of homotopy type or homotopy classes of maps. The definition of the geometric topology on that set differs in that the map φ must preserve base point, and its homotopy class is not restricted.
A third topology on the set H(M ) is the quasi-isometric topology, denoted QH(M ). A small quasi--isometric neighborhood of an element f : M → N of H(M ) consists of those f′ : M → N′ ∈ H(M ) for
which there exists a global diffeomorphism g : N → N′ with g ◦ f ≃ f′, whose derivative is uniformly close
to being an isometry.
In general, a diffeomorphism g between two hyperbolic manifolds P and Q which has the property that its derivative is within a uniform distance of an isometry is called a quasi-isometry. More particularly, when the derivative of g satisfies
log kdg(V )k kV k
≤ K for all tangent vectors V to P ,
g is called a K-quasi-isometry. When such a quasi-isometry exists, then P and Q are quasi-isometric. These three topologies, the algebraic, geometric, and quasi-isometric, are successively finer, so that the maps
QH(M ) → GH(M ) → AH(M )
The inverse maps, in general, are discontinuous. For example, it is easy to see that in the geometric topology any non-compact hyperbolic surface of finite area is a limit of hyperbolic surfaces with infinite area. In the quasi-isometric topology, area is clearly a continuous function (where the values of the area function are endowed with the topology making ∞ an isolated point).
The demonstration that AH(M ) → GH(M ) is not continuous is much trickier, and requires at least three dimensions. There exist examples for which M is the product of a surface of genus 2 with an interval. See Ref. TK for one discussion of such an example.
The sphere at infinity divides into two essentially different parts under the action of any discrete group Γ of hyperbolic isometries: the limit set LΓ, which is closed, and its complement, the region of discontinuity
DΓ, which is open. DΓ is the unique maximal open set where Γ acts properly discontinous, and LΓ is the
unique non-empty minimal closed subset invariant for Γ (except in certain cases when Γ is elementary, such as Γ = Z).
Since Γ acts conformally on DΓ, the quotient space DΓ/Γ inherits a conformal structure. Let us specialize
to the case of dimension n = 3. The Teichm¨uller space of (DΓ, Γ) can be defined as the space of all conformal
structures on DΓinvariant by Γ which are quasiconformal to the initial conformal structure, up to conformal
equivalences between structures which are equivariant with respect to Γ. Except in the case of elementary groups, each such conformal structure is represented by a unique Γ-invariant hyperbolic metric on DΓ, its
Poincar´e metric.
The Teichm¨uller space T (DΓ, Γ) is sometimes the same as the Teichm¨uller space of the quotient surface
DΓ/Γ, but not always. Consider, for simplicity, the case that Γ has no elliptic or parabolic elements. Then
the Ahlfors finite area theorem says that the quotient surface consists of a finite number of components, each compact. Any conformal structure on the quotient surface gives rise to an equivariant conformal structure on DΓ, and all equivariant conformal structures are quasiconformally related. This says that an element of
the Teichm¨uller space of the quotient surface defines an element of the Teichm¨uller space of (DΓ, Γ). When
the components of DΓ are simply-connected, then any equivariant homeomorphism of DΓ is equivariantly
isotopic to the identity, and the two Teichm¨uller spaces are the same. Otherwise, T (DΓ, Γ) is the quotient
of T (DΓ/Γ) by the group of isotopy classes of quasiconformal homeomorphisms of DΓ which commute with
the action of Γ.
Any quasi-isometry between two complete hyperbolic n-manifolds lifts to a quasi-isometry from Hnto Hn.
Any such quasi-isometry extends continuously to the sphere at infinity, where it induces a quasiconformal map. (Indeed, this fact was an important point in Mostow’s proof that hyperbolic structures are rigid.) Therefore, if N is any hyperbolic 3-manifold and N′ is any other hyperbolic 3-manifold quasi-isometric with
N , the conformal structure on Dπ1(N′) defines an element
conf(N′) ∈ T (D
π1(N ), π1(N ))
We shall be concerned with the case that each component of Dπ1(N ) is simply-connected, so the conformal
invariant is more directly thought of as element of the Teichm¨uller space of the quotient surface.
Here is a fundamental result, which has evolved through the work of a number of people, beginning with Ahlfors and Bers, including Mostow, Maskit and others, and put in a clean form through the work of Sullivan. Theorem 1.3 (Quasiconformal Deformation Theorem). Let M be any complete hyperbolic 3-manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. The component QH0(M ) of QH(M ) which contains M consists of all
f : M → M′ such that f is homotopic to a quasi-isometry φ : M → M′. The map
conf : QH0(M ) → T (Dπ1(M), π1(M ))
is a homeomorphism.
In particular, the quasi-isometric deformation space QH0 always consist of a single point, or it is
non-compact. An important special case occurs when M is compact or has finite volume. Then DΓ is empty,
so QH0(M ) is a single point; this case is the Mostow rigidity theorem. Since QH0 is often not compact,
theorem 1.2 may be thought of as an existence theorem for many sequences of elements of H(M ) which converge in AH(M ) but not in QH(M ).
cracking the egg shell on a convenient hard surface, such as one’s skull. Apparently no material is physically separated from the egg, but many cracks are developed — cracks are dense in the boundary — and at the same time, the material of the egg just inside the shell is weakened, so that neighborhood systems of points on the boundary become thinner. Finally, QH(M ) has uncountably many components, which are obtained by peeling off the shell and scattering the pieces all over. Each component is homeomorphic to some Teichm¨uller space — it is parametrized by Euclidean space of some even dimension. “Most” of the components have dimension zero, for they describe groups whose limit set is all of S2
∞.
2. Ideal triangulations
The plan for the proof of theorem 1.2 is to study maps of a triangulation of a compact acylindrical manifold M to hyperbolic manifolds homotopy equivalent to M . In a sequence of such maps, we can study how the shapes of simplices might degenerate. Hyperbolic simplices can degenerate in only very special ways; qualitative information about the geometry of the three-manifolds can be deduced from these shapes and how they are assembled.
It is desirable to impose conditions on the maps we study so that properties of the map indicate properties of the target manifold, and are not so much dependent on the arbitrary choices we make in choosing a particular map in a homotopy class. From the beginning, we abandon any thoughts of choosing the map to be an embedding, and concentrate on more attainable conditions.
If τ is a triangulation of M , and if f : M → N is any map in the homotopy class, then f is homotopic rel the vertices of τ to a piecewise straight map s, that is, having the property that when s is lifted to a map ˜s between universal covers, the image of each simplex is the convex hull of the image of its vertices. It is not important exactly how each simplex maps to its image, but one way to choose an explicit map is by way of the Lorenz model for hyperbolic space. The lift ˜f of f to a map between universal covers sends the vertices of any simplex to points which in the Lorenz model E3,1 lie on H3 regarded as a sheet of a
hyperboloid. The map on vertices extends to a unique map S of ˜M to E3,1 which is linear on each simplex;
when this is projected back to the hyperboloid, it gives a map ˜s to H3= ˜N . Since ˜s is canonically defined,
it is equivariant, so it projects to a map to N . S is equivariantly homotopic to ˜f rel vertices, by a linear homotopy. The homotopy can be projected back to H3 and thence to N , giving a homotopy of f to s rel
vertices.
It is clear that any other piecewise-straight map is homotopic to s through maps such that each simplex has the same image. This property also holds for the lifts of the maps to the universal covers.
The use of piecewise straight maps removes much of the arbitrary choice involved in choosing a map in the homotopy class — the choice which remains is the choice of positions of the vertices, except for the irrelevant choice of parametrization of images. To be precise, the choice of positions of vertices is really made not in N , but in its universal cover ˜N = H3. Any equivariant map of the vertices of the triangulation
˜
τ of ˜M determines a piecewise straight map, up to trivial homotopy. If the images of the vertices are merely chosen in N , the homotopy classes of edges must still be determined.
To minimize choices, we will use a limiting case of piecewise-straight maps where we choose positions of the vertices not in H3 = ˜N , but on the sphere at infinity S2
∞. By doing this, we immediately will lose the
map from M to N . We will have at most a map from M minus the vertices of the triangulation to N . What we will gain is much simpler variations in the shapes of images of simplices.
An ideal k-simplex in Hn is the convex hull of a set of k + 1 distinct points on Sn−1
∞ , subject to the
condition that this convex hull is k-dimensional. If the convex hull is lower dimensional, then it is a flattened ideal simplex. An ideal simplex is homeomorphic to a simplex minus its vertices. To choose an explicit parametrization, one can choose a point in En,1 to represent each vertex. These representatives lie on the
light cone; the choice can be anywhere on the appropriate ray. Once these choices are made, map the simplex to En,1 by linear extension, and project the simplex minus its vertices to Hn. This determines the
parametrization up to precomposition with projective diffeomorphisms of the simplex to itself.
Similarly, there is a map of a simplex minus its vertices to a flattened ideal simplex which is well-determined up to precomposition with projective diffeomorphisms.
An ideal simplicial map of τ to N is defined to be an equivariant map from the universal cover ˜τ to the completion H3S S2
∞of ˜N such that each vertex of τ goes to S∞2 , and the image of each simplex is the convex
hull of the image of its vertices. Any ideal simplicial map r determines a special subcomplex at infinity ˜ι(r) of ˜
Figure 2. An ideal simplicial map for a pair of pants can be obtained by spinning a triangu-lation. The initial triangulation has 8 triangles, but only two of them remain nondegenerate after spinning.
We shall also refer to ι as the subcomplex at infinity. There is a map D(r) defined downstairs, but its domain is only τ − ι. Each simplex of τ minus its intersection with ι maps either to an ideal simplex, a flattened ideal simplex, or in the case its intersection with ι contains more than vertices, it maps degenerately to a lower-dimensional simplex. The map D(r) is a limit of ordinary piecewise-straight maps restricted to τ − ι. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate some examples in 2 dimensions. These examples have been obtained from piecewise straight maps of τ by spinning, that is, homotoping each vertex repeatedly around a simple closed curve on the target surface and passing to the limit. In example 1 on a pair of pants, only 2 out of 8 two-simplices are mapped non-degenerately, and in example 2 on a surface of genus 2, only 4 out of 6 are non-degenerate. These examples were chosen to be particularly nice, so that the nondegenerate simplices are mapped disjointly and with positive orientation. In the general case for a surface of genus 2, each ideal triangle would be likely to be dense on the surface, although most of it would be be extremely thin.
For the proof of theorem 1.2, we will study the limiting geometry of the map r or D(r), and try to reconstruct a limiting manifold from this geometry. Before trying to pass to limits, however, we should ask ourselves whether we can even reconstruct N from the local geometry of D(r), that is, from the shape data — the shapes of nondegenerate images of simplices minus ι — and the gluing data — the information describing how the nondegenerate images of simplices fit together near any common face in ˜N . In example 2 of figure 3, this information does not suffice to determine the hyperbolic structure. In this case, M − ι is not connected, and it is impossible to reconstruct how the two halves are joined together.
We shall see that the situation is much better in dimension 3. A group G is an amalgam if it can be described as either (1) a free product G = A →
C ∗B, or (2) an HNN amalgam G = A →C ∗. The group C is
the amalgamating group. A representation as an amalgam is trivial if it is of type (1) and C includes into A or B as the entire group.
Proposition 2.1 (Abelian Is Small In Acylindrical). The fundamental group of a compact aspherical atoroidal acylindrical 3-manifold with incompressible boundary cannot be represented as a nontrivial amalgam such that the amalgamating group is abelian or contains an abelian subgroup with finite index.
Proof. For any representation of a 3-manifold group as a nontrivial amalgam, there is an incompressible surface whose fundamental group is some subgroup of the amalgamating group, by a standard 3-manifold argument. (Form a classifying space by forming the product of a classifying space XCfor C with an interval,
and gluing its ends to the classifying space for A or A and B. Map the three-manifold to the classifying space, and make the map transverse to XC× {.5}. The preimage of XC× {.5} is a surface. Apply the loop
Figure 3. Examples of ideal simplicial maps for surfaces. These can be constructed starting with an ordinary piecewise straight map, then homotoping the vertices through homotopy classes tending to infinity.
If the amalgamating group is abelian or contains an abelian subgroup of finite index, then the surface could only be a sphere, projective plane, torus, Klein bottle, or disk, annulus or Moebius band. The hypotheses rule out any such surface which cuts the 3-manifold non-trivially.
Proposition 2.2 (Iota Bounded By Abelian). If S is any component of the boundary of the regular neigh-borhood of the subcomplex at infinity ι for any ideal simplicial homotopy equivalence of a compact acylindrical 3-manifold M to a hyperbolic 3-manifold N , then the image of π1(S) in π1(N ) contains an abelian subgroup
with finite index.
Proof. Each component of ˜ι maps to a single point on S2
∞. Therefore, the fundamental group of any
component of the boundary of ι acts on ˜N = H3with a fixed point at infinity. Any discrete group with this
property contains an abelian subgroup with finite index.
Corollary 2.3 (Complement Of Iota Is Large). The fundamental group of some component of the comple-ment of ι maps surjectively to the fundacomple-mental group of M .
Proof. For each component S of the boundary of the regular neighborhood of ι, there is a representation of π1(M ) as either an amalgamated free product or an HNN amalgam, where the amalgamating group is
the image of π1(S) in π1(M ). By 2.2, the amalgamating subgroup is virtually abelian. Thus, by 2.1, the
Examples (rather artificial) can be easily constructed where the complement of ι is not connected. For example, choose τ to be a triangulation of M which admits an embedding of a sphere in its 2-skeleton, and so that the ball bounded by the sphere contains at least 1 vertex. Choose the ideal simplicial map so that the vertices of each upstairs sphere (in ˜M ) map to a single vertex on S2
∞, while the vertices in the upstairs
balls map to points distinct from the image of its boundary and distinct from each other. Somewhat more interesting examples may be constructed using a solid torus whose fundamental group injects in π1(M ). In
this case, the vertices on the bounding torus must be mapped to one of the fixed points for the action of its fundamental on S2
∞.
We can now characterize exactly which subcomplexes ι of a triangulation τ can be the subcomplex at infinity for an ideal simplicial homotopy equivalence. Certainly ι must contain all the vertices of τ , and it must satisfy the condition that if the boundary of any simplex of dimension 2 or more is in ι, then the simplex is in ι. (A simplex of dimension bigger than 1 has a connected boundary, which implies that if its boundary is in ι, it maps upstairs to a single point). If ι also satisfies the necessary condition that the image of each the fundamental group of each component of ι in π1(M ) is virtually abelian, then an ideal simplicial
map is easily constructed by mapping each component of ˜ι to some point fixed by the action of its stabilizer in π1(M ) on S∞2 .
The final ideal simplicial map r can easily have the property that each image simplex by D(r) is dense in N . However, most of each image simplex consists of long, thin spikes; because the spikes have small volume, we shall see that they have little real consequence.
Figure 4. The image of a simplex may be dense under an ideal simplicial map. 3. Shapes and limits
We will now analyze in detail how the shapes of ideal simplices determine a hyperbolic manifold N , and what kind of limiting behaviour they can have. From this analysis, we will derive a quick proof of theorem 1.2 in the case that the manifold is compact; the theorem is known as a consequence of the Mostow rigidity theorem in this case, but the simple proof helps illustrate the idea.
The remaining ingredient needed for the general case of 1.2 is some way to control the boundary of M . We shall do this using an analysis of pleated surfaces, to be introduced in the next section.
For simplicity, we will stick to analyzing the case that M is oriented. The result for an unorientable manifold will be simple corollary of the oriented case.
All ideal 1-simplices in Hn are congruent. In fact, they are overly congruent: any ideal 1-simplex (line)
has many isometries taking it to any other ideal 1-simplex. This is the reason that the local geometry of an ideal simplicial map does not determine the target manifold in dimension 2. In the case of an ideal 1-simplex in H3, there is a two dimensional or one complex dimensional group of isometries stabilizing it.
All ideal triangles in Hn are congruent, since the group of isometries of Hn acts transitively on triples of
Ideal tetrahedra are not all congruent. There is a one dimensional or one complex dimensional family of different shapes. The shape of an ordered simplex in oriented H3 has a convenient parametrization obtained
by transforming by the unique orientation-preserving isometry so the first three vertices of the simplex at the points 0, 1 and ∞ in the upper half-space model Its congruence class is determined by the position of the last vertex, which is at some point z ∈ ˆC− {0, 1, ∞} in the thrice-punctured sphere. If z is on the real line, then the ideal simplex is a flattened simplex. If the imaginary part of z is positive, then the map of the simplex preserves orientation, while if it is negative it reverses orientation. The invariant z is the same as the cross-ratio of the four vertices of the tetrahedron.
There are 24 possible orderings of the vertices of a tetrahedron, 12 of them compatible with a given orientation. How can the shape of an oriented but unordered simplex described?
The description is simplified by the fact that every ideal tetrahedron has a certain beautiful symmetry, described by an action of Z2× Z2. In fact, consider the common perpendicular to any opposite pair of edges
of an ideal simplex, that is, edges with no common ideal vertex. Rotation of π about such a perpendicular preserves the two edges in question, which implies it preserves their set of endpoints. Therefore, it acts as an isometry of the simplex to itself. There are three pairs of opposite edges, so this construction gives rise to three nontrivial isometries; together with the identity, they form the group Z2× Z2. The three axes intersect
in a common point, where they are mutually perpendicular.
This group of symmetries of the ideal tetrahedron is a normal subgroup of the alternating group for the four vertices, and it preserves the invariant z. The quotient group is Z3, which may be identified with the
group of even permutations of the three pairs of opposite edges. This means that the invariant z is associated with a pair of opposite edges.
Here is a more direct way to describe the association of an edge invariant z(e) to an edge e of a congruence class of oriented ideal simplices. If e is (temporarily) given an orientation, then in terms of the orientation of the standard tetrahedron, the two triangles which have e as an edge can be distinguished as the clockwise face when viewed from above and the counterclockwise face. There is a unique orientation-preserving isometry φ of H3taking the image of the clockwise face to the image of the counterclockwise face, while preserving the
two endpoints of e. The edge invariant is the complex number whose modulus is the translation distance of φ, and whose argument is the angle of rotation of φ. Note that φ will rotate clockwise or counterclockwise about e, depending on whether the simplex is mapped to preserve or reverse orientation. If the opposite orientation of e is chosen, then φ must be replaced by φ−1, but the complex number z(e) remains the same.
Figure 5. The shape of an oriented ideal simplex is determined by any of its edge invariants. The invariants for various edges are related as shown.
The edge invariant is consistent with the parametrization of an ordered simplex: if an ideal tetrahedron is arranged so the first three vertices are at 0, 1 and ∞ with the fourth vertex at w, then the w = z(0∞) = z(1w). The transformation taking the clockwise face for 0, ∞ to the counterclockwise face acts as multiplication by w on the complex plane.
illegal values, the other two edge invariants tend toward the other two illegal values. When this happens, the ideal simplex stretches apart into two pieces that look nearly like ideal triangles, connected by a long thin nearly 1-dimensional part (figure 6).
Figure 6. As an ideal simplex changes, the only kind of degeneration which can happen to its shape is that it stretches out into two parts which look like ideal triangles, joined to each other by a long stringy part. The edge invariants for the two edges which remain on one side converge to 1. The other edge invariants converge to 0 or inf inity, depending on the orientation of the simplex.
Now let M be any compact three-manifold, and consider a sequence of elements {Nk} ∈ AH(M ),
parametrized by ideal simplicial maps fk using domain triangulation τ . Let ρk : π1(M ) → Isom H3
de-note the holonomy for Nk. We will pass to subsequences as necessary to try to get convergence of as much
of the data as possible; each subsequence will be renamed like the entire sequence. We first pass to a sub-sequence so that the subcomplex ι at infinity is constant. Next, we pass to a subsub-sequence so that the edge invariant of each image ideal simplex or flattened ideal simplex converges in ˆC. If the limiting edge invariants are all in ˆC− {0, 1, ∞}, then the sequence of representations converge up to conjugation, hence there is a limit in AH(M ).
In general, some of the edge invariants may very well go to illegal values. We will define a “submanifold” G ⊂ M so that the sequence of representations for the fundamental group of each component of G auto-matically converges, possibly after taking a subsequence and conjugating. For this, it is sufficient that fk
restricted to G is homotopic to a map which stretches the metric of G by only a bounded amount, since the set of isometries which move a given point by a bounded amount is compact.
G is obtained from M by removing a neighborhood of a “bad” 2-complex B. B is defined to consist of all 1-cells (not because they are bad, only because it simplifies the picture to discard them), all degenerate 2-cells, together with a twisted square embedded in any 3-simplex whose edge invariants are converging to illegal values. The twisted square is embedded in such a way that its four edges are the four edges with edge invariants tending toward 0 or ∞. It separates the two edges whose edge invariants are tending toward 1 (figure 7).
Figure 7. A twisted square like this is adjoined to the 2-complex B in each 3-simplex (of τ ) whose edge invariants tend toward the three illegal values 0, 1, and ∞. The edges of the square are on the four “stretched” edges with invariants tending to 0 and ∞, and the square separates the two edges with invariants are tending to 1.
Figure 8. These are the four ways which G can intersect a 3-simplex α, up to symmetries. There are either 0, 2, or 4 degenerate simplices on the boundary of α, depending on the intersection of ι with α. (Note that if α ∩ ι contains as much as edges or a 2-simplex, then all the 2-simplices of ∂α are degenerate.)
It is clear from the definition that the sequence of representations restricted to the fundamental group of a component of G remains in a compact set.
Let κ denote the frontier of G, that is,
κ ∼= ∂G − ∂M.
The strategy for proving theorem 1.2 will be to show that π1(G) is large in π1(M ); we will do that by showing
that κ is in a certain sense “small” in M . The analysis is related to a certain quotient map p : κ → γ, where γ is a graph or 1-complex.
Figure 9. A quotient graph γ of the internal boundary κ of the good submanifold G is constructed by defining an equivalence relation in its intersection with each 3-simplex. The quotient graph will be determined by defining equivalence relation or decomposition of κ.
The first step is to construct a subsurface with boundary κ0⊂ κ which consists of a the intersection of a
as illustrated in figure 9. Each diagonal band “indicates” vertices of ideal simplices which are converging together, from the point of view of its component of G∩ the simplex. Each component of κ0is to be collapsed
to a point to form the vertices of γ.
The second step is to form a foliation F of κ − κ0. In fact, any component of the intersection of κ − κ0
with a 3-simplex is a rectangle, two of whose edges are on the boundary of the simplex and near two edges of the simplex. Let F be the trivial foliation of each such rectangle transverse to these two edges. The leaf space of F within the rectangle is parametrized by the unit interval [0, 1]. Arrange so that the foliations in neighboring rectangles are joined so that this parametrization is either preserved or reversed.
The leaves of F are compact, so each leaf is a circle if M is closed, or possibly an interval if M has boundary. The components of κ0 together with the leaves of F define an equivalence relation, whose quotient is the
graph γ.
We will need the following, due to Chuckrow [Chu68]:
Proposition 3.1 (Non-Elementary Limit Is Discrete). Let Γ be any group, and suppose that σk : Γ →
Isom(Hn) is a sequence of discrete faithful representations which converges to a a representation σ
∞. Then
either σ∞(Γ) is discrete and σ∞ is faithful, or Γ contains an abelian subgroup with finite index.
Proof. For any K > 0 there is an ǫ > 0 such that any discrete group of isometries of Hn which is generated
by elements γ1, . . . , γl having the property that for some point x0, d(x0, γ1(x0)) < ǫ and for all i > 1,
d(x0, γi(x0)) < K has an abelian subgroup with finite index. (Cf . Ref. Thu86, pp. ??? for one discussion).
To prove 3.1, let K be greater than the distance that σ∞of the generators of Γ moves some x0. If there is no
element of Γ such that d(σ∞γx0, x0) < ǫ, then σ∞Γ is discrete. Otherwise Γ contains an abelian subgroup
with finite index.
Proposition 3.2 (Gamma Locally Abelian). For each 0-cell or 1-cell β of the graph γ, π1(p−1(β)) is abelian.
Proof. If β is an edge of γ, then p−1(β) is a rectangle or a cylinder and in either case has an abelian
fundamental group.
Since κ is in the good set, the sequence of representations ρk converge on κ to a limiting representation
ρ∞. The limiting representation restricted to any component of κ0 fixes a point on S∞2 . This point is a
limit of images of vertices under the ideal simplicial maps. If π1(p−1(β)) is not discrete, it is abelian by
the preceding proposition. On the other hand, any discrete group of orientation preserving isometries of H3
which fixes a point at infinity is abelian.
It is likely that for some of the cells β of γ, the group ρkπ1(p−1(β)) trivial. Let γ0 be the union of cells
whose group is not trivial.
Proposition 3.3 (Gamma0 Has Abelian Pieces). For each component c of γ0, the image of π1(p−1(c)) in
π1(M ) is abelian.
Proof. This will follow from Proposition 3.2 together with the following lemma:
Lemma 3.4 (Commutation Transitive). (i). If x, y and z are any three orientation preserving isometries of infinite order in H3 such that x commutes with y and y commutes with z, then also x commutes with z.
(ii). If x and y are two orientation preserving isometries of infiite order in H3 such that y−1xy commutes
with x, and if x and y generate a discrete group, then y commutes with x.
Proof. Orientation preserving isometries of infinite order commute iff they have the same axis or the same parabolic fixed point at ∞. Part (i) immediately follows.
Under the hypothesis of part (ii), if x is hyperbolic, then y must also be hyperbolic with the same axis, so they commute. If x is parabolic, then y must fix the parabolic fixed point of x. The hypothesis of discreteness implies that y cannot be hyperbolic; therefore it is parabolic, with the same fixed point.
The image of π1(p−1(c)) in π1(M ) is built up by amalgamated free products and HNN amalgams from
4. The deformation space for closed manifolds is compact
We will now specialize and complete the proof of theorem 1.2 in the case that M is a closed manifold or a manifold whose boundary consists of tori. This is equivalent to the condition that Nk have finite volume.
Even though this case follows from Mostow’s rigiditry theorem, it is worth presenting in order to motivate the more technical version needed to handle the case when M has boundary.
Here is a quick synopsis of the proof. The geometry of the maps from M to Nk (pinned down via ideal
simplicial maps) remains bounded unless something is stretched a great deal. In terms of the simplices, M decomposes into pieces where the geometry of the map remains bounded, joined by other parts of M where the geometry is going to infinity. The interface is a surface which maps with small area, and which turns out to be made up of pieces whose image fundamental group in M is abelian. By topological considerations, such surfaces cannot separate an atoroidal manifold in an essential way. Thus, one of the pieces where the geometry of the map remains bounded carries all of the fundamental group of M .
Since ∂M consists of tori, we can arrange that ∂M ⊂ ι, by mapping all simplices of ∂ ˜M to the point at infinity corresponding to the given cusp. This implies that κ will be a closed surface.
We can make an isotopy of the surface κ in M so that its image in Nk by the ideal simplicial map has
small area, tending to 0 as k → ∞ . This can be accomplished by isotoping the intersection of κ with any 2-simplex so that it is near near the boundary of the 2-simplex, and then extending individually to each 3-simplex. Recall that components of κ − κ0intersected with a 3-simplex are foliated rectangles. We arrange
that these rectangles are mapped to long thin strips in N , whee the leaves of the foliation give the short direction. In fact, we make the lengths of the rectangles go to infinity with k, while the widths go to 0.
For any edge e of γ − γ0, the cylinder p−1(e) ⊂ κ is made up of a fixed number of thin strips, glued
together edge to edge. These edges are the intersections of the cylinder with 2-simplices of τ . Since the fundamental group of the cylinder has a trivial representation in this case, fk restricted to the cylinder can
be lifted to H3. Since the cylinder lies in the good set, the amount of shearing of one of these strips in the
cylinder with its neighbors is bounded as k → ∞. Since the strips are becoming infinitely long, there is a short cross sectional circle. Such a circle bounds a disk of small area.
Construct a manifold G1by attaching 2-handles to G along the core curve of each of these trivial cylinders.
The inclusion G ⊂ M extends to a homotopically unique map g1: G1→ M , since the core curves are trivial
in π1(M ). The composed map fk◦ g1into Nk is homotopic to a map such that the image of κ1= ∂G1has
small area. Note that the image of the fundamental group of any component of κ1 in π1(M ) is abelian, in
virtue of 3.3.
If C is any piecewise-differentiable singular 3-chain in a Riemannian manifold P , let degreeC: P → R be the step function which gives the degree of C at a point in P . It is defined almost everywhere. The mass of C is defined as mass(C) =R
P| degreeC| dV . The mass of a 2-chain is defined similarly, using the degree
of C on each tangent 2-plane in P and integrating with respect to 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure. For a generic 2-chain, the mass is just the area of its image.
Proposition 4.1 (Small Abelian 2-Cycle Bounds Small 3-Chain). Let P be any hyperbolic 3-manifold with abelian fundamental group. Then every 2-cycle Z in P bounds a 3-chain C in P , possibly with non-compact support, satisfying mass(C) ≤ mass(Z). The function degreeC is uniquely determined by Z.
Proof. There are two cases — the fundamental group of P can be either parabolic or hyperbolic. Consider first the hyperbolic case. Let (r, x, θ) be cylindrical coordinates about a line in H3, so r is the distance from
the line, and x is the height of the projection to the line. The hyperbolic metric is ds2= dr2+ cosh2rdx2+ sinh2rdθ2.
The 2-form α = cosh r sinh rdxdθ, which is the area form for equidistant surfaces about the line, has norm 1. Its exterior derivative
dα = (cosh2r + sinh2r)drdxdθ is greater than the volume form
dV = cosh r sinh rdrdxdθ. The form α descends to P .
C to make ∂C transverse to itself. Since we can change the sign of the negative part, we need consider only the case degreeC≥ 0. We have
mass(C) = Z C dV < Z C dα = Z Z α ≤ mass(Z).
The case that P is parabolic is similar, except that H2(P ) may not be zero; howerver, each 2-cycle bounds
a unique chain of finite volume. For this case, take as α the area form for a family of horospheres. Then dα = 2dV , and the proof goes through.
For each component C of κ1, the group g1∗π1(C) in π1(M ) is abelian — either 1, Z, or Z2. In the first two
cases, choose some 3-manifold MC with ∂MC = C such that the homomorphism extends to π1(MC). The
map of C to M extends over MCin a homotopically unique way. In the third case, define MC= C × [0, 1],
and glue it on to C at C × 0. The map g1 on C extends over MC taking C × 1 to ∂M .
Let G2 be the manifold obtained from G1 by attaching the MC’s, and let g2: (G2, ∂G2) → (M, ∂M ) be
the extension of g1over the MC’s. Clearly each component of G2 contains a unique component of G and the
corresponding components of G2 and G have fundamental groups with the same image in π1(M ). Thus, if
G0
2is a component of G2then, after conjugations, the representations ρk◦ g2: π1(G)02→ Isom(H3) converge.
Proposition 4.2 (Degree G Is 1). The degree of g2: (G2, ∂G2) → (M, ∂M ) is 1.
Proof. The degree can be computed by composing with the map fk : (M, ∂M ) → (N, cusps). The map fk,
as an ideal simplicial map, is not continuous on all of M , but by modifying f in a small neighborhood of ι, it can be approximated by a continuous map which is a homotopy equivalence. The modification takes place on a portion of M whose image has a small mass. The degree of fk can be defined at almost every point in
Nk by adding up the degrees of the 3-simplices which hit it. It follows that the local degree of fk is 1 almost
everywhere.
The singular chain defined by g2 is obtained from that defined by fk by a sequence of moves, each of
which affects only a small volume: The mass of the image of B (the complement of G) is small; G1 was
obtained by adding 2-handles with small mass; and finally, G2 was obtained from G1 by adding 3-chains of
small mass. Thus, the total mass of the chain defined by g1 is close to the volume of Nk. Since this mass
must be an integral multiple of the volume of Nk, and since there is an a priori bound to the volume of a
hyperbolic manifold, it follows that its degree must be 1.
This proposition tells us that G2 must “capture” most of the fundamental group of M , so the proof is
almost finished. In fact, if (P, ∂P ) → (Q, ∂Q) is a map of degree k between connected n-manifolds, the image of π1(P ) in π1(Q) has index at most k: otherwise, the map would lift to a covering space of degree
(possibly infinite) greater than k, so the composed map from P to Q would have degree greater than k. The proof in this special case (∂M consists of tori) of theorem 1.2 is finished, except for the possibility that G and hence G2 is not connected.
Even if G2 is not connected, at least one component must map to M with positive degree. The easy case
of theorem 1.2 will be completed by the following:
Lemma 4.3 (Finite Index Convergence Implies Convergence). Let Γ be a group which does not have an abelian subgroup of finite index. Let H ⊂ Γ be any subgroup of finite index. Suppose that {ρk} is a sequence
of discrete faithful representations of Γ in the group of orientation preserving isometries of H3 such that {ρk} restricted to H converges. Then {ρk} converges on the entire group Γ.
Proof. One may as well assume that H is a normal subgroup of Γ, since in any case H contains a normal subgroup with finite index.
Any non-elementary group, such as H, contains at least three non-commuting elements of infinite order. [In fact, H must contain a free group on 2 generators.] These three hyperbolic elements determine three distinct points, there attracting fixed points, on S2
∞. Any orientation preserving isometry g is determined
by its action on these three points; but if g ∈ Γ, this action is determined by the action of g by conjugation on H.
If {ρk} restricted to H converges, then also the attracting fixed points of its hyperbolic elements converge.
5. The geometry of pleated surfaces
The proof of the easy case of theorem 1.2 given in the preceding section is insufficient in the general case for lack of control over the behavior at ∂M . For this purpose, we will use pleated surfaces.
A pleated surface in a hyperbolic 3-manifold N is a complete hyperbolic surface S, together with a continuous map f : S → N which satisfies
(a): f is isometric, in the sense that every geodesic segment in S is taken to a rectifiable arc in N which has the same length, and
(b): for each point x ∈ S, there is at least one open geodesic segment lx through x which is mapped to
a geodesic segment in N .
Generally, a pleated surface is not smooth, and generally f is not even locally an embedding. These qualities are sacrificed for the sake of properties (a) and (b) above, which turn out to generate a useful theory. This theory has been extensively analyzed in Ref. Thu86. We will review a few basic facts.
Proposition 5.1 (Folded Or Flat). If x ∈ S is any point in the domain of a pleated surface, then either there is a unique geodesic segment lxthrough x which is mapped to a geodesic segment, or x has a neighborhood
which is mapped isometrically to a portion of a hyperbolic plane in the image.
Proof. Suppose l and m are two distinct line segments through x which are mapped to line segments. Consider a quadrilateral surrounding x, with corners on l and m. Since its sides cannot increase in length, none of the angles formed by l and m at x can increase under f . This forces them to be the same in the range as in the domain, so therefore the four sides of the quadrilateral are mapped to geodesics. This in turn forces each geodesic segment from x to a point on the quadrilateral to map to a geodesic segment, so the image is a portion of a plane.
The set of points for which the germ of the segment lx is unique is called the pleating locus Π(f ) for the
pleated surface f .
A geodesic lamination λ on a hyperbolic surface S is a closed set L, together with a foliation of L by geodesics of S. One example is a simple closed geodesic; other examples can be obtained by taking for L a Hausdorff limit of a sequence of longer and longer simple closed geodesics.
When we are not being stuffy, we will ignore the distinction between λ and its support L. Indeed, it is an easy consequence of proposition 5.3 below that L determines λ.
Proposition 5.2 (Pleating Locus Is Lamination). The pleating locus for a pleated surface has the structure of a geodesic lamination
Proof. It is obvious that the pleating locus is closed, since its complement is open.
If y ∈ Π(f ), and if there is any geodesic segment m with one endpoint at y in a direction not on ly, then
we claim there is a portion of a half-plane bounded by ly containing m which is mapped by f to a portion
of a half-plane. The proof is half the proof of 5.1.
With these two observations, it follows that for any x ∈ Π(f ), the line segment lxextends to a complete
geodesic which remains always in the pleating locus and defines lyfor any point on it. These geodesics must
be coherent, defining a foliation of Π(f ), in virtue of the fact that they cannot cross.
Proposition 5.3 (Laminations Have Measure 0). The support L of a geodesic lamination λ on any surface of finite area has measure 0.
Proof. This is due to Nielsen, who studied geodesic laminations extensively in a somewhat disguised form.The method is to show that the complement of L has full measure. Each component of the complement is a hyperbolic surface, with boundary consisting of geodesics, possibly with corners (half-cusps) like the corners of an ideal triangle and cusps. The area of such a region can be easily computed by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, in terms of its Euler characteristic and number of cusps of each kind.
Later we will describe how the an ideal simplicial map on the boundary of M can be made to describe a pleated surface in Nk, much as in the example illustrated in figure 3. The proof of 1.2 will depend
on knowing that these bounding pleated surfaces remain definitely separated: they cannot collapse like a punctured innertube.
Mathematically, the information will be conveyed in terms of the mapping Pf of the pleating lamination Π(f ) on the domain surface S into the tangent line bundle P(N ) of the target hyperbolic manifold. Even though f itself is not usually an embedding, we will show that under mild assumptions Pf is an embedding, and from this we will deduce that laminations in S embed uniformly in Pf .
A geodesic lamination λ on a hyperbolic surface is minimal if the closure of any leaf is all of λ, or in other words, if there are no proper sublaminations. A lamination is recurrent if the closure of any half-infinite segment of any leaf contains the leaf. It is immediate that a minimal lamination is recurrent. There is a partial converse:
Proposition 5.4 (Finite Minimal Decomposition). A geodesic lamination λ on a complete hyperbolic sur-face of finite area has only a finite number of connected components, and it is recurrent iff each component is minimal
Proof. The complement of λ is a hyperbolic surface with geodesic boundary, sometimes with half-cusps along its boundary. The number of boundary components of complementary pieces is bounded in terms of the area of S, so the number of components of λ is bounded.
By elementary topology, each component of λ has at least one minimal set. Suppose that µ is any minimal set of λ. There is some ǫ such that any geodesic of λ which comes within ǫ of the support of µ must tend toward µ in one direction or the other: simple geodesics within ǫ of a closed boundary component of S − µ are trapped into a spiral around µ, and simple geodesics close to a boundary component of S − µ which has half-cusps are trapped into some half-cusp. Therefore, if the component of λ containing µ is recurrent, it consists only of µ.
A geodesic lamination on a surface may happen to wander around only on a small part of the surface. For any lamination λ on S, denote by S(λ) the smallest subsurface with geodesic boundary containing λ. As a special case, if λ is a simple closed curve, define S(λ) to be the curve itself. If the components of λ are µ1, µ2, . . . ,µn, then S(λ) = ∪S(µi), and the S(µi) have disjoint interiors.
Theorem 5.5 (Laminations Cover). Let f : S → N be a map of a hyperbolic surface of finite area, not necessarily connected, to a hyperbolic manifold, which takes any cusps of S to cusps of N , and which is injective on fundamental group.
Suppose that λ is a recurrent geodesic lamination on S such that f takes each leaf of λ to a geodesic of N by a local homeomorphism (as with the pleating locus for a pleated surface).
Let g : λ → P(N ) be the canonical lifting, and let µ1, . . . , µn be the components of λ. Then either
(a): g is an embedding, or
(b): The map f restricted to the disjoint union of the surfaces S(µi) factors up to homotopy through a
covering map
ρ : ∪.S(µi) → R
and ∪µi is the pullback by p of a lamination µ on R which does embed in P(N ).
Case (a) is actually contained in case (b); it is stated separately because it is the typical case. In particular, note that when S is the boundary of an acylindrical manifold, (b) cannot occur for topological reasons. Our current application will be in the case of a pleated surface, but the surface S is really only present to control the topology of the map of λ into N .
In many ways, minimal geodesic laminations behave like simple closed geodesics; this theorem is an illustration. In the case that λ is a union of simple closed geodesics, this theorem is quite clear.
Proof. Consider any two points x1, x2 ∈ λ that have the same image under g. Then there are geodesics
li: R → S of λ through xi such that g ◦ l1= g ◦ l2.
Consider the diagonal lamination λ × λ ⊂ S × S. The product map l1× l2: R → S × S is a leaf of this
it enters infinitely often. If t and s are any two times which l1× l2enters U , closed loops can be constructed,
based at x1 and at x2:
αi= li[0, t] ∗ ǫi∗ l−1i [0, s] i = 1, 2,
where ǫi is a short arc connecting li(t) to li(s).
The loops g ◦ αi are based at the point f (x) = f (y) in N , and they are nearly identical. If the diameter
of U is less than half the minimum value for the injectivity radius of N in the image of λ, then these loops are necessarily homotopic in N .
We will now prove that g is a local embedding of λ in P(N ). Suppose that x and y are close to each other, and let δ be an arc on S connecting them. Then the loops δ ∗ α2and α1 are homotopic when mapped to N ,
therefore they must be homotopic in S. This implies that l1[0, t] is close to l2[0, t] for its entire length.
This works in both the forward and backward directions, varying the choice of the points s and t, for arbitrarily long segments of lx and ly. Consequently, the two geodesics and the two points are identical.
This proves that g is locally an embedding.
Next we will show that g acts as a covering projection to its image. Define an integer-valued function n on λ which gives the number of points in λ which have the same image as x in P(N ). Since λ is compact and since x is not identified with any nearby point, n(x) is bounded.
The function n must satisfy the semicontinuity condition n(lim
i (xi)) ≤ limi (n(xi))
because points identified with xi remain well spaced out, and any limit point of the sets identified with xi is
also identified with xi. Therefore, the set {x|n(x) ≥ m is closed. It is also saturated by λ, so it this set is a
union of components. It follows that n is constant on each µi.
It is now easy to show that g is a covering projection; this is similar to the proof that a continuous 1-1 map between compact spaces is a homeomorphism.
What remains to be proven is that the covering projection of µ extends to more of the surface, in fact, to the disjoint union of the S(µi).
The assertion is trivial in the case of any of the µi which are closed geodesics, so we may assume that λ
has no such components.
In the remaining lamination, there is a finite set of special leaves of λ, those leaves where λ accumulates from only one side. These leaves can be identified topologically from λ alone, becaue each end of such a leaf is asymptotic to another end of such a leaf; together they form the boundary of a half-cusp of one of the complementary regions. There are no other pairs of leaf-ends of λ which are asymptotic. From this, it follows that identifications in the covering projection of λ extend to a neighborhood of λ in S, so that f factors through a covering projection at least on a neighborhood of λ.
Consider now any component A of Sµi−µi. One boundary component of A is made of a chain of geodesics
of µi, the forward end of each asymptotic to the backward end of the next, which maps as a k-fold covering
to its image, for some k. There are two possibilities for A: either it is an annulus, with another boundary component a boundary component of Sµi (or a cusp), or it is a disk.
If A is an annulus, there is no problem: the covering projection defined one of its boundary components automatically extends.
If A is a disk, then the map factors up to homotopy through a branched covering to some disk, with one branch point at the center. (Keep in mind here that since N is hyperbolic, any element of finite order in π1(N ) is trivial).
This means the map from the entire component S(µi) factors through a branched covering. But if
the branched covering had actual branch points, the map could not be injective on π1(S), contrary to
hypothesis.
Often there are topological conditions that rule out the possibility of the map of a surface into a three-manifold factoring through any non-trivial covering, even on a union of subsurfaces.
If S is a hyperbolic surface of finite area and if f : S → N is a map to a hyperbolic 3-manifold which takes cusps to cusps, then f is incompressible if
(a): π1(f ) is injective.
(b): Homotopy classes of maps (I, ∂I) → (S, cusps(S) relative to cusps map injectively to homotopy classes of maps (I, ∂I) → (N, cuspsN ).
(c): For any cylinder c : S1× I → N with a factorization of its boundary ∂c = f ◦ c
0 : ∂(S1× I) → S
through S, if π1(c) is injective then either the image of π1(c0) consists of parabolic elements of π1(S),
or c0extends to a map of S1× I into S.
(d): Each maximal abelian subgroup of π1(S) is mapped to a maximal abelian subgroup of π1(N ).
We will use a slightly weaker condition, weak double incompressibility on surfaces where (d) is replaced by (d’): Each maximal cyclic subgroup of π1(S) is mapped to a maximal cyclic subgroup of π1(N ).
Condition (d) implies in particular that no curve on S is homotopic to a Z2-cusp, while (d′)merely says that
the image of π1(S) is indivisible in π1(N ).
Theorem 5.6 (Laminations Inject). If f : S → N is weakly doubly incompressible, and if λ is any geodesic lamination on S such that f takes each leaf of λ to a geodesic in N by a local homeomorphism, then the canonical lifting g : λ → PN is an embedding.
Proof. From conditions (c) and (d′)of the definition of weak double incompressibility, it easily follows that f restricted to a subsurface with geodesic boundary or to a closed geodesic of S can never factor through a covering projection. By 5.5, it follows that g is injective at least on the recurrent part ρ of λ.
Any end of a leaf of λ − ρ must leave all compact subsets of S − λ. The only possibilities are that the end either tends toward a cusp of S or a half-cusp of S − ρ, or spirals around a closed geodesic of ρ.
Let ˜ρ ⊂ ˜λ be the inverse images of ρ and λ on the universal cover ˜S. The endpoints of leaves of ˜λ on S1 ∞
are either endpoints of leaves of ˜ρ, or cusps. We will show next that ˜λ maps injectively, by showing that these endpoints map injectively to the sphere at infinity for N .
The set of parabolic fixed points for π1(S) maps injectively to the set of parabolic fixed points for π1(N ),
by the hypothesis (b) of injectivity of the relative fundamental groups.
A parabolic fixed point cannot be identified with an endpoint of a leaf of ˜ρ when mapped to ˜N , in virtue of the fact that the injectivity radius for N is bounded below in the image of ρ.
Consider any two leaves l1 and l2 of ˜ρ whose images in P ˜N are asymptotic. Since ρ → PN is a covering
map to its image and since ρ is compact, the map ˜ρ → ρ → PN is also a covering map to its image. It lifts to a map ˜ρ → P ˜N , also a covering map to its image. This final covering must be trivial, on account of condition (c). Comparing it to the map ρ → PN , we see that there must a fixed ǫ such that every ǫ-disk in ρ maps homeomorphically to its image (since ρ is compact).
This says that l1and l2are already asymptotic in ρ.
It follows that the map from ˜λ to P ˜N is an embedding. In particular, the map λ → PN is a local embedding. Define an integer-valued function n on λ which says how many points of λ have the same image in PN . As before, we have
n(lim
i (xi)) ≤ limi (n(xi)).
If a leaf of λ limits on ρ, then n is 1 on the leaf, since n is identically 1 on ρ. The other possibility is that the leaf limits on cusps of S at both ends; n takes the value 1 in this case because of condition (b).
We will now generalize this injectivity result to a uniform injectivity theorem, by considering geometric limits. For this, we will assume that the surfaces f : S → N are pleated surfaces. In fact, such a pleated surface always exists for any lamination λ which can be mapped geodesically to N , but in order to keep the logic straight, we will assume that the pleated surface is given to us.
The main case of the uniform injectivity theorem will be when λ is the pleating locus for the surface, but the theorem needs to be stated with greater generality to handle the case that the surface does not actually bend at λ.
Theorem 5.7 (Uniform Injectivity). Let ǫ0 > 0 and A > 0 be given. Among all doubly incompressible
pleated surfaces
f : S → N
are uniformly injective on the ǫ0-thick part of S. That is, for every ǫ > 0 there is a δ > 0 such that for
any such S, N , λ and f and for any two points x and y ∈ λ whose injectivity radii are greater than ǫ0, if
d(x, y) ≥ ǫ then d(g(x), g(y)) ≥ δ.
Proof. We will make use of the geometric topology on hyperbolic manifolds equipped with a base point and an orthogonal frame at that point. Two manifolds are close in the geometric topology if there is a diffeomorphism which is an approximate isometry from a ball of radius at least R in one manifold to the other manifold, taking base frame to base frame. No condition is given on the fundamental group.
Here is a basic fact about the geometric topology:
Proposition 5.8 (Geometric Topology Is Compact). For any ǫ1> 0, the space of hyperbolic manifolds with
base frame at a point whose injectivity radius is at least ǫ1 is compact in the geometric topology.
We can also put a geometric topology on pleated surfaces f : S → N in hyperbolic manifolds, where base frames are assumed to match up under f . The pleated surface f is close to f′ : S′ → N′ in the geometric
topology if there are approximate isometries on balls of radius R from S to S′ and from N to N′ in balls
which approximately conjugate f to f′.
Proposition 5.9 (Pleated Surfaces Compact). The space of incompressible pleated surfaces f : S → N in hyperbolic 3-manifolds N , with base frame in S having injectivity radius ≥ ǫ1, is compact in the geometric
topology.
Note. Without the hypothesis of incompressibility, one would need a hypothesis on the injectivity radius of N .
Proof. The base point x0 of S has two loops through it of length not exceeding some constant C which
depends on A and on ǫ1, such that the two loops generate a free group of rank 2.
The image f (x0) therefore also has a pair of loops through it with the same property; it follows that the
injectivity radius of N at f (x0) is greater than some constant ǫ2> 0.
The sets of potential surfaces S and potential 3-manifolds N are therefore compact in the geometric topology. Since the maps f are Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant 1, it follows that in any infinite sequence fi : Si → Ni of pleated surfaces there would be a subsequence where the domain surface, the range
3-manifold, and the maps fi would converge to an object f : S → N . The only thing that remains to check is
that the limit which is actually a pleated surface.
If x ∈ S, and if x is not an accumulation point of the λi ⊂ Si, then f in some neighborhood of x is
a limit isometries of a uniform-size hyperbolic neighborhood to a hyperbolic plane in Ni, so f is flat in a
neighborhood of x. Otherwise, geodesic arcs in S which are mapped to straight arcs by f can be found as limits of arcs on λi.
It remains to show that the arc length of a geodesic arc α ⊂ S is preserved by f . We may assume that the λi converge. It is clear that the length of the image of α cannot be greater than the length of α, since
the approximations have this property. On the other hand, any geodesic are α can be approximated by a geodesic arc whose length is the sum of the lengths of its intersections with the complement of λ, since λ has measure 0 on S. Each subarc in the complement of λ is mapped to a straight line, so certainly its arc length is preserved; therefore, the length of the image is at least as much as the length of α.
Suppose we are given a sequence of doubly incompressible pleated surfaces fi : Si → Ni, together with
geodesic laminations λi mapped geodesically, and points xi and yi on λi satisfying inj(xi), inj(yi) ≥ ǫ0 and
d(gi(xi), gi(yi)) → 0. Theorem 5.7 will follow when we show that d(xi, yi) → 0.
By proposition 5.9 there is a subsequence such that the pleated surfaces converge with base frames chosen at either xi or yi converge, where the first vector in the frame is tangent to the lamination.
There is a further subsequence so that the laminations λi converge in the Hausdorff topology. Let f :
S → N be the limit pleated surface, λ the limit lamination, and g : λ → P(N ) the canonical lifting of f restricted to λ.
Lemma 5.10 (Limit Doubly Incompressible Weakly). The limit pleated surface f : S → N is weakly doubly incompressible.